NC LRT Advocacy Group

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by lineman

Actually, if you research beyond Google maps and conjecture, your redline route has storm drains, water and power throughout. I wouldn't be surprised if there were gas pipelines in the area too. So much for WAY cheaper.

Not to mention attempting to build on a side slope, which to date every other developer in this city has stayed away from. It's likely as unstable as the hill around Centre Street which we all know the problems it caused with the emergency Ops centre.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

We already know where the SE LRT is going. Check it out here: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/So...Compendium.pdf
The last station is directly east of Eau Claire Market on 2nd Street.

The Centre Street alignment will connect with this line. It will bury at around 10th avenue (wild guess, but I don't know the geodetics), come out of a tunnel portal on the bluff and then cross the river with a bridge, descending to the Eau Claire Tunnel the entire way.

My best guess would be that, too. Going over the river on a bridge means that cut and cover tunnelling could start much sooner, and this will mean the lowest cost. I think there's a possibility that it could be done with zero bored tunnel if there's an S curve that would bring the line under centre street immediately north of Memorial drive.

[ByeByeBaby]

Here's a rough SketchUp mockup I did a couple of years back on what the bridge-to-tunnel approach would look like:



I obviously didn't bother with a lot of details, like bridge supports or the tunnel portal. A couple of other images in the album. There would clearly be an impact on Prince's Island; I feel like good design could sufficiently mitigate it, but that's an argument to have.

[You Need A Thneed]

By the time the bridge would go over Memorial, it could be quite high in the air. A bridge isn't going to cost significantly more if it gets higher up, and it could save on tunnelling costs to get as high up as possible.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

As I said, there would be land aquisition costs for the Nose Creek line as well, from CP Rail that could add up to as much as the Centre Street land acquisition costs. Either option would be $200-500 million.

As the area south of Beddington grows in density, the BRT will need developing beyond what is currently there. It would need it's own right of way, whether it be BRT or streetcar. If that part of the cost bugs you so much, ignore it.

Originally Posted by 2006 North Central Corridor Review

The Nose Creek valley runs along the east side of the study area and accommodates two major, regional north / south transportation links - Deerfoot Trail and the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) line. South of Beddington Tr. and west of the CPR tracks, land use in the valley is mostly recreational or open space, with some industrial areas. The City of Calgary owns the majority of the land and a right-of-way for LRT could be established with some minor acquisition of industrial lands near McKnight Blvd. Alternately, property could be leased from the CPR from within the existing rail right-of- way.

Could you please make at least a token effort to familiarize yourself with the proposal in question?

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by fusili

We already know where the SE LRT is going. Check it out here: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/So...Compendium.pdf
The last station is directly east of Eau Claire Market on 2nd Street.

The Centre Street alignment will connect with this line. It will bury at around 10th avenue (wild guess, but I don't know the geodetics), come out of a tunnel portal on the bluff and then cross the river with a bridge, descending to the Eau Claire Tunnel the entire way.

If its connecting through a tunnel, I would think it would make a lot more sense for it to stay under the river rather than creating another bridge which will impact the river front pathway system is what I think would be a negative fashion. Stay UG from Eau Claire to 16th ave and come out either on the lot on the SE corner of 16th Ave & Center or on the NE corner.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Here's a rough SketchUp mockup I did a couple of years back on what the bridge-to-tunnel approach would look like:



I obviously didn't bother with a lot of details, like bridge supports or the tunnel portal. A couple of other images in the album. There would clearly be an impact on Prince's Island; I feel like good design could sufficiently mitigate it, but that's an argument to have.

I think this proposal would have a very negative impact on princes Island, 2nd st, the newly built waterfront condos, the riverfront pathway, and the future eau claire redevelopment.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

hence why I continue to ask you to present anything that is an equivalent example to serve as second best evidence. You haven`t and until you do, and it very likely doesn`t much matter to you, but I`ll take you as yet again being proven wrong. You show me otherwise.

It is a commuter rail line, mirroring a natural and long established right-of-way. If you want to over think that - be my guest.

Don`t be daft. If you don`t understand accessibility, don`t comment on it. However, you do but just have no real argument to present.

I understand - it simply doesn't apply. It has been explained exhaustively every single time the corridor has been reviewed. This line will serve the new suburban communities and not the Centre Street corridor. If you disagree with serving the new communities - well that is another argument.

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up... So why did you try to argue that somehow a Nose Creek line will serve more people that "will exist" come that time? This discussion might actually prove more fruitful if you at least try to argue the realities of what you are advocating. I think it is pretty clear that a centrally aligned line serves more people as it would serve all the same people that you are including but more - south of Beddington. So are you even trying to discuss this, or purposely inventing non-existent arguments?

The Nose Creek line will serve more people because come the time it is built there will have been thirty plus more years of suburban development within its catchment. A more central line would indeed potentially serve more people if it were to eventually reach north of Beddington Trail but comparing something that probably can't be built - to something that can be without much fuss is ridiculous.

Again, want to perhaps increase your sample set or benchmark? What similar city? Edmonton? Winnipeg? Denver? Las Vegas? St. Louis? maybe Munich? Zurich? Strasbourg? Marseille? Karlsruhe? Rostock? Gdansk?

Calgary is a city of affluent, predominantly suburban professional white people. Who don't merely patronize the LRT but buses as well. I had some folks from the US who wanted me to take them on a rush hour tour of Calgary's best neighbourhoods so they could study and interview the affluent white bus commuter. Calgarians don't merely tolerate transit - they have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards transit. You can see the CEO of a top shelf energy producer on a certain bus route. You couldn't ask for a better starting point for building transit than Calgary - but one also has to acknowledge this was built on a certain commuter oriented paradigm that shouldn't be significantly deviated from.

My goal isn`t to berate Calgary Transit as it`s not as if they are doing only bad things, but unrivalled? Why is it that I can`t even go to a bus station and figure out when, where and how often I can expect a bus - if I can even find that station minimally marked with a small white sign and some number that I`m supposed to know to call. Correct me if things have actually changed throughout.

Calgary Transit isn't without fault, I have many complaints about them. But please grant them the skills of observation to recognize that they might be able to plan a new LRT route based on past successes. Delivering suburban douchebags to their central places of employment.

If you want to adhere to the outliers (say Wendell Cox) then that is your prerogative,

Wendell Cox is a loud mouth, but he isn't an outlier, a whole lot of people are going to have to retire and or die before your attitudes represent any sort of consensus.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

You're obviously not familiar with the concept of a bottleneck. You are aware that interlining means two seperate train routes converging on one track. There wouldnt be two parrallel sets of tracks running along the point where the NC and West/NE line converge, so think about it for a bit and you'll quickly come to see how this reduces the maximum capacity of both lines.

You are obviously not familiar with what modernization can do to track capacity.

NJ Transit pulled the equivalent of a third track into New York out of its ass by modernizing their interlocking and switching. Calgary Transit has already begun modernization on the South line.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Could you please make at least a token effort to familiarize yourself with the proposal in question?

Thanks, that pretty much makes my point I think.

Yes, the city owns most of the land in the valley, that's fine. The line could avoid using the CP right of way for the most part, if they wanted to. However, let's compare some options:

Option 1 - Do not use CP ROW at all, but stay close to it

Would require a new bridge on 8th ave over the LRT line
would require a new bridge on 16th Ave over the LRT line in both directions
likely require golf course modifications
would require a new bridge on 32nd ave over the new LRT line
would have to purchase some industrial properties between 32nd and McKnight
would require a new bridge on McKnight over the LRT line
would have to purchase industrial land between Mcknight and Laycock park
new bridge over Nose Creek by Laycock Park
would require a new bridge on 64th Ave over the LRT line
would require some realigning of the Nose Creek pathway in some spots
may require some modifications to the Beddington Trail bridges
would require new bridge over West Nose Creek
Likely require some realignment of West Nose Creek

Option 1A - Follow Nose Creek

Still requires all of the same new bridges as option 1
Might avoid some industrial land purchase.
Topography might make construction more difficult, would have to avoid building in flood plain of the creek.


Option 2 - Elevate the whole thing, or at least enough to avoid building new bridges under existing roads.

Option 3 - Build off of the CP right of way, except for under existing roads

Option 4 - Build entire line in CP right of way.

CP might say no to the city buying any right of way anyway. Looking at it, any high speed rail line would require the use of the same bridges under existing roads. There's no way that the LRT AND two new high speed tracks are going to fit in that space. Either way, the LRT would have to be the westernmost set of tracks, which might mean that the city would have to build new underpasses under all the existing roads anyway.

So, even if the city doesn't buy any CP ROW, they would still have to buy some land, and build 8 new bridge structures, most of which would have traffic delay costs on top of construction costs.

The city might want to build a flyover that would get the tracks over the Westbound lanes of memorial too - this would be the only way to avoid a really sharp corner at Nose creek if they would go under. This would be the case for all options.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You are obviously not familiar with what modernization can do to track capacity.

NJ Transit pulled the equivalent of a third track into New York out of its ass by modernizing their interlocking and switching. Calgary Transit has already begun modernization on the South line.

No amount of modernization will change the laws of physics. Until you develop technology that allows two trains to occupy the same physical space, all you can do is maximize efficiency.

The whole discussion has to eventually boil down to one point: Will the two lines ever need their full potential, or are they anticipated to have enough slack that interlining wont create a future bottleneck.

Since the NCLRT is envisioned to serve the entire north central growth corridor, and the NE is experiencing its own growth, I think its prudent to keep the two seperate to handle the extra people.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You are obviously not familiar with what modernization can do to track capacity.

NJ Transit pulled the equivalent of a third track into New York out of its ass by modernizing their interlocking and switching. Calgary Transit has already begun modernization on the South line.

All the modernization in the world doesn't change the fact that max capacity for each line is cut in half with interlining.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

My cost estimate takes into account the cost of tunnelling under the river, or building a bridge across the river, yes. It's expensive, but it's not some outrageous expense, either way. The city has tunnelled under the river for a different project within the last 5 years, afterall.

That project you linked and a LRT tunnel under the river are completely different types of projects that would be installed in an entirely different fashion.

There is no way they are going under the river, it would be WAY more expensive then you are guessing at. The only way they could do it would be to divert the river much like they did when they did the work on the weir. They would be doing a bridge as it would be many times cheaper.

The fact they are not actually going up centre street when they hit downtown is actually smart though, this alleviates that part of the issues I had with that. I think having a bridge curve over the river and having a stop in the Eau Claire area is pretty smart since that mall and area needs some redevelopment anyhow.

With a stop in Eau Claire the idea of tunneling into Sunnyside Bank Park, curving NW towards McHugh Bluff Park, and connecting into 4th street is looking more and more doable and I still think 4th is a far better route if you are trying to go through the heart of the communities rather then skirt the edge of them. It would not be cheap, but it is a good route.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by fusili

We already know where the SE LRT is going. Check it out here: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/So...Compendium.pdf
The last station is directly east of Eau Claire Market on 2nd Street.

The Centre Street alignment will connect with this line. It will bury at around 10th avenue (wild guess, but I don't know the geodetics), come out of a tunnel portal on the bluff and then cross the river with a bridge, descending to the Eau Claire Tunnel the entire way.

Hmm, thanks for that link. Definately would connect easy enough to a NC line. Should be interesting to see if they move at all on the options and see where this goes in the next decade or so.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Hmm, thanks for that link. Definately would connect easy enough to a NC line. Should be interesting to see if they move at all on the options and see where this goes in the next decade or so.

The fact that the SE line terminates in such a convenient location for a NCLRT up center street screams to me a center street alignment is favored by transit and the other options are to compare and show they have considered other possibilities. Once you have a tunnel boring machine working on the SE DT tunnels, you might as well continue up center street, or park it and leave it for future tunneling.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I think this proposal would have a very negative impact on princes Island, 2nd st, the newly built waterfront condos, the riverfront pathway, and the future eau claire redevelopment.

Hard to argue with that. There might possibly be room to do a tunnel portal on Prince's Island itself, in the natural vegetation area just west of the constructed wetland and west of the line I showed. It would be stretching to the limits of current technology, but with advances like contactless power systems that are in the development phase, it would certainly be possible. It would still impact the park, but not the pathways or condos.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It is a mug's game to answer west LRT vs 8th Ave tunnel, but yeah pushing the SE LRT before 8th is not wise. The capacity constrainsts on the south LRT is already leading to bad policy choices (14th Street BRT south of Heritage but one example) in both transit, planning and the marketplace.

But getting the SE LRT going would also relieve pressure on the South LRT, which draws in passengers from an enormous area.

I suppose the issue there is getting the SE LRT far enough south to make a difference, but if we're getting into a discussion on the 8th Ave subway vs SE LRT, you'd have to see how far south you can get on the SE LRT for the cost of the 8th Ave subway.

I'd say the critical point is whether the SE LRT can get across the Bow. If you can do that for about the same cost as the 8th Ave subway, go for the SE LRT. All the feeder buses from east of the Bow could head up to Ogden and offload there.

Moving for more system expansion before existing capacity constrainst are addressed is more stupid moves like the incremental expansion to Saddletown and Tuscany.

Originally Posted by fusili

If the train is full, don't expand. Tuscany, Saddletown etc are all wastes of money until 4 car trains are built.

I doubt that extending the NW line to Tuscany is going to cause much of a capacity problem. It's not like it's going to bring a whole whack of new people to transit. All you're really doing is shortening the time spent on the feeder bus. Also, once the line is out to Tuscany, that's probably going to be it for a good long time, so you might as well extend it there and grab the operating savings on the feeder bus side.

Saddletown might be a bit of a different matter since there might well be new transit users arising from that extension.

[fusili]

The one thing Calgary Transit can be damn proud of is the fact that we are having discussions about capacity of the system. No other city of this size has these issues (ok, maybe some). But the fact that the system is hitting capacity constraints shows how successful it is.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And this is the point at which I cease to be able to take most of what any of you guys have to say about public transit seriously. The problem is the only interest most of you express in public transit is using it as a tool to advance a spatial form and lifestyle you happen to champion and anything a transit agency does that doesn't serve your vision is something stupid to be shouted down. This of course puts the urbanists in the sightly ridiculous position of impeaching Calgary Transit's knowledge of successful light-rail systems as they make a series of ridiculous demands. Many of which emulate the least successful light-rail systems. (I speak of the pining for street cars.)

To say nothing of the demand that more or less amounts to demanding a single LRT line for the price of two. Nobody is going to support splurging on a Centre Street alignment to serve a Centre Street that probably isn't going to look all that different when the communities the Nose Creek LRT was conceived of to serve are solidly established and at roughly the time further suburban extensions will be required to all the existing lines. Digging a two billion dollar plus hole (literally or figuratively) to 64th Ave as a policy is going to be unsalable.

Home Truth: The LRT is a poor mans commuter rail system, not a street car and certainly not a subway. Deviate from that reality at your own risk.

[snip]

The Nose Creek alignment isn't "some sort of pseudo "public," inaccessible, cop out of a line." It is a highly efficient alignment that will serve people who will actually exist come completion. Unlike the imagined denizens of a re-imagined Yonge Street inspired Centre Street that will never exist in numbers to support the investment in a Centre Street subway or anything else.

Ok then... LRT as a poor man's commuter rail system. If that's the frame of reference, then Centre Street probably isn't the way to go.

But... that doesn't mean that Nose Creek is, either. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Nose Creek alignment doesn't really have much of a catchment until north of 64th.

If you want to use Nose Creek for a long distance commuter service, let's be serious about it instead of wasting money trying to needlessly force it into an LRT service: just go with DMUs like Ottawa's O-Train and run those out of the old train station downtown and up to the airport, to Airdrie and even into Symon's Valley while keeping the number of stations to a minimum south of Beddington, maybe just McKnight, 16th, Memorial/NE LRT and 12th St SE/SE LRT.

Someone else pointed out the possibility of 4th Street. If the goal is fast, highly efficient alignment that is accessible but with little concern for redevelopment potential or remaking the city or anything like that, then 4th looks to be the way to go. It is dead straight other than the wobble where Centre joins the alignment (and there is plenty of parking lots to make use of to address that). It runs almost right down the mid point between Nose Hill and Nose Creek, so feeder buses will be balanced and easy to organize. It has few businesses or other complications to worry about and just about everyone along it has an alternate access. It's already a commuter road, so LRT would actually amount to a reduction in noise to people nearby. Getting from 2nd St up to 4th is also a lot simpler than getting up to Centre. So just take that street and completely close it off to traffic; in other words turn it into a light railway (and, for the hell of it, cycling) corridor.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by fusili

The one thing Calgary Transit can be damn proud of is the fact that we are having discussions about capacity of the system. No other city of this size has these issues (ok, maybe some). But the fact that the system is hitting capacity constraints shows how successful it is.

Well Ottawa does, and it's not really because the system is successful.

But the reason we have these issues is mainly because some genius thought it was a bright idea to build busways rather than light railways.